The case arises out of the federal government's investigation of New York attorney Robert Simels for conspiracy to obstruct justice. As part of its investigation, the government asked a judge for authorization to wiretap conversations between Simels and his client. The Wiretap Act requires that intercepts be "minimized," meaning the government can only capture conversations relevant to the ongoing criminal investigation. The judge issued the wiretap but required the government to contemporaneously minimize the communications it was intercepting. Later, a different judge found the government failed to comply with the court's order and suppressed the wiretaps, preventing the government from using them at trial. The court suppressed under 18 U.S.C. § 2515, which says that when a communication has been illegally intercepted in violation of the Wiretap Act, "no part of the contents of such communication and no evidence derived therefrom may be received in evidence in any trial."

After Simels testified in his own defense at trial, the government asked the judge for permission to play the suppressed wiretap recordings to the jury, intending to show that Simels had testified inconsistently with what he had said on the recordings. Despite the clear prohibition against the use of illegally intercepted communications in any trial, the judge nonetheless ruled that the Wiretap Act contained an implicit exception that allowed the government to use an illegally intercepted communication to impeach (or discredit) a witness. Simels was ultimately convicted, and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals rejected his argument that the judge was wrong in allowing the jury to hear the illegally intercepted communications.

In our brief to the Supreme Court, we argue that a judicially-created impeachment exception to the Wiretap Act not only contravenes the plain text of 18 U.S.C. § 2515, which contains no impeachment exception, but also goes against Supreme Court precedent governing how to interpret statutes. Most importantly, allowing exceptions to the Wiretap Act's otherwise absolute bar against the use of illegally obtained wiretap evidence will only continue the growing privacy intrusions caused by wiretaps.

In the ten years since the passage of the PATRIOT Act, the number of wiretap authorizations has almost doubled.1 And the estimated2 number of people who are being wiretapped has increased as well.

Meanwhile, the percentage of intercepts considered "incriminating" is decreasing.

So has the percentage of intercepts resulting in actual convictions.

And one last alarming statistic stands out: between 2001 and 2010, while there were 19,282 wiretaps authorized, only three(!) wiretap applications were denied.3 The conclusion is simple: more people and conversations not connected to criminal activity are being recorded with little judicial scrutiny. Allowing courts to create exceptions to the strong privacy protections in the Wiretap Act only encourages this dangerous trend. While the lower court should be applauded for holding the government accountable to the minimization requirements of the Wiretap Act, it nonetheless aided the government in defeating privacy by allowing it to play to the jury an illegally obtained recording. So despite breaking the cookie jar, the government gets to have its cake and eat it too.

Hopefully, the Supreme Court will grant certiorari and restore the strong protection in the plain text of the Wiretap Act. And if courts are concerned that litigants can get away with perjury absent an impeachment exception to the Wiretap Act, the solution is for Congress to amend the law, not for judges to invent exceptions to the Wiretap Act out of whole cloth—particularly when these invented exceptions only lead to greater privacy risks to innocent individuals.

Related Updates

The government recently revealed for the first time that federal agents maintained an open investigation of our client, Academy Award-winning documentary filmmaker Laura Poitras, for six years despite never finding any evidence that she committed a crime or was a threat to national security. Coming up empty handed after...

EFF Senior Staff Attorney Jennifer Lynch and Investigative Researcher Dave Maass last night received the First Amendment Coalition’s 2017 Free Speech & Open Government Award in recognition for their work bringing transparency and accountability to law enforcement’s collection and use of automated license plate...

A bill to extend one of the NSA’s most powerful surveillance tools, and further peel back American civil liberties, was approved today by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in a strict party line vote (12-8), with Republican members voting in the majority. The committee and the public had...

Thrown last-minute into a torrent of competing legislation, a new bill meant to expand the NSA’s broad surveillance powers is the most recent threat to American privacy. It increases who is subject to surveillance, allows warrantless search of American communications, expands how collected data can be used, and treats constitutional...

Washington, D.C. - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed suit against the Department of Justice, the Department of Commerce, and the Department of Homeland Security today, demanding records about the agencies’ work on the federal Tattoo Recognition Technology program. This secretive program involves a coalition of government, academia, and...

Securely browsing the Internet—even when you know what you’re doing—is tough. That’s partly why, nearly seven years ago, EFF worked together with The Tor Project to develop a privacy tool called HTTPS Everywhere, which automatically provides users with secure, encrypted connections to websites when available. While HTTPS Everywhere can be...

Millions of users are trying to protect their privacy from commercial tracking online, be it through their choice of browser, installation of ad and tracker blocking extensions, or use of a Virtual Private Network (VPN). This guide focuses on how to correctly configure the blocking extension in your browser to...

Today we’re launching a new version of Panopticlick, an EFF site which audits your browser privacy protection. Conceived to raise awareness about the threat of device fingerprinting, Panopticlick was extended in December 2015 to check for protection against tracking by ads and invisible beacons. This new update...

Take the language of one NSA surveillance reauthorization bill and add a few strong reform proposals from another, and what do you get? A bill that helps protect Americans from the warrantless search of the content of their emails, text messages, and digital communications. On November 17, Senators Patrick Leahy...

Three years ago, EFF exposed how hundreds of law enforcement agencies were putting families at risk by distributing free ComputerCOP “Internet safety” software that actually transmitted keystrokes unencrypted to a third-party server. Our report also raised serious questions about whether the company was deceiving government agencies by circulating a...